Grand Strategy Wargames emphasizing playability

[chuft]

It's been awhile since I bought a computer strategy game and am itching to get a new one. What I have found in the past is that non-historical games, like SMAC, Civ, Age of Wonders II, Master of Orion II etc. tend to be long, deep, yet very playable with lots of action and no required micromanagement of units. They can take a long time to play but every turn feels action packed. You move and attack, or heal, or dig in, with each unit, and do not have to spend time looking at each unit's statuses each turn to make sure they are not low on mortar ammo, or diapers, or whatever. But every time I try to find something similar in the historical department, I suddenly hit a wall of detail and worse, a very zoomed in time scale, such that most combats only do minor damage to the target and the game seems to crawl with overly gradual combat results.

I have played a lot of board wargames, including some very complex ones like World in Flames, Advanced Third Reich, the Operational Combat Series games, etc so it is not the complexity or the realism that bugs me. It's the extreme unit micromanagement and very slow pace of combat that I don't like in most computer wargames. I don't like it taking turn after turn to kill a single unit because each attack only does a few percentage points of casualties, fatigue, disorganization, supply expenditure, or demoralization. Computer wargames for some reason are way more "zoomed in" than board wargames covering the exact same conflict. And I think it makes them feel boring to play.

A board wargame of the Nazi-Soviet war will typically use corps and two-week or monthly turns. A computer game of the same conflict seems to always use divisions, and turns only a few days long, with each unit having tons of ratings and fluctuating statuses that you must pay attention to. A WWII board wargame at the regiment scale will typically have 2 or 3 day turns and 5 mile hexes. A computer game of the same conflict will typically have 4 hour turns and a much smaller space scale.

After being burned by games from the old Atomic Games "V for Victory" series, through Operational Art of War, and even just looking at the typical Grigsby game, I am extremely reluctant to buy historical computer wargames. I looked recently at the Decisive Campaigns games and they seem to have the same focus: very zoomed in time and space scales, leading to a feeling of the war crawling along. I watched a youtube of someone attacking with the Germans against the Low Countries in 1940 as part of the French campaign, and it took half an hour to lightly damage a minor country unit. It looked boring as hell. In a boardgame of a conflict like that you would have wiped out numerous enemy units in the same amount of play time and taken several cities.

At the other end of the scale are "wargames" like Panzer General/Panzer Corps/whatever which are really puzzle games. I played Allied General for awhile before I realized killing enemy units was a bad idea, since they would be instantly rebuilt by the computer between me and my objective, so it was better to gnaw them down to a hit point or two and bypass them so they would be effectively out of the scenario. This kind of gameyness rubs me the wrong way in a wargame, especially if I feel there is one "solution" the game makers want you to follow, and you will lose until you find it for that scenario. I like things more open and chaotic.

The one sweet spot I have found so far is Strategic Command. It plays like Civ or SMAC in its elegance yet feels quite historical overall. I think I would like all the Strategic Command II games, but am extremely reluctant to do business with Battlefront due to their noxious eLicense DRM and online activation scheme. I also recently found out that they do not release patches for versions of their games sold by GamersGate. Strategic Command II Blitzkrieg for example apparently doesn't work on Windows 7 without the 1.09 patch, yet the Battlefront 1.09 patch won't work with the GamersGate version of the game (which is DRM free), making the latter useless for Windows 7 users. This kind of thing biases me against Battlefront even more. I almost bought SCII from GamersGate but fortunately did my research first.

Anyway, I would be interested in getting some recommendations for historical wargames which hit that sweet spot of playability and realism, where units are for moving and fighting, and do not require excessive attention to keep them fit. What are your favorite wargames where you can kill an enemy unit with a few quick attacks, yet offer a lot of options and give an overall feeling of realism?

I prefer operational and strategic games, I really like the bird's eye view of affairs.

I do enjoy some Blitzkrieg now and then but generally find it too easy (on Easy) and too hard on the other settings - and it ends up feeling like a puzzle game where you have to be infinitely careful or you will lose a good unit (and the scenario effectively) to an ambush. In fact most tactical games seem that way to me....even Fallout Tactics felt like that. Crawling, peering and squinting, with infinite patience in the attempt to avoid an ambush. Just not a scale I like.

Asking elsewhere, the only answers I have gotten were Commander: The Great War, and Unity of Command. Does anyone know the time scale of Commander? I am concerned about trying to play a WWI game with anything less than monthly turns. Unlike board games, computer games usually don't give their time and space scales, and it takes effort to find out what they are, which makes shopping for a new game somewhat tedious.

Thanks for any recommendations. Maybe I am better off just getting Age of Wonders III....but I do like a panzer division rumbling by every now and then.

 

[spectre]

Asking elsewhere, the only answers I have gotten were Commander: The Great War, and Unity of Command. Does anyone know the time scale of Commander? I am concerned about trying to play a WWI game with anything less than monthly turns.

This may still vary depending on scenarios but, IIRC, I saw weekly turns.

Unlike board games, computer games usually don't give their time and space scales, and it takes effort to find out what they are, which makes shopping for a new game somewhat tedious.

Damn man, if only that was the biggest problem with the genre

No good news for you, my good man. You know quite well what you want to play, and as you've seen, there isn't much of a choice in the matter. There's a selection of grand strategy titles and more tactical titles.
When it comes to operational, we also got command ops - battles from the bulge, which you haven't mentioned, but I think is pretty much the opposite of what you want from the game.

I admit, it's a bit scraping at the bottom, but while you've got burnt by panzer generals, panzer general 3 (and 3d - the naming is screwed up there, there are actually two almost identical games, one covers the eastern and the other the western front).
It plays a bit differently than the other entries, but the most important thing is I remember that distinctive puzzle game vibe was not present in this entry.
It has a fair share of problems though, the sense of scale is very off (as in, I can't really get the feel where it stands) and the graphics take an effort to get used to.

Maybe I am better off just getting Age of Wonders III....but I do like a panzer division rumbling by every now and then.

Well If it's that kind of an itch... perhaps Operation Star (sequel to Operation Kharkov) can accomodate you? It's not really the scale you're looking for, but at this point i'm just throwing names at you, hoping something sticks.

 

[Galdred]

You could try World At War : A world divided, but then, maybe you will find the scale too large actually, as the map does not leave much room for maneuver. I had a blast in MP with it, but I was mostly playing Japan, so the limited land war options didn't bother me much.
Some people seem to like Making History 2 : The War of the World. IIRC Commander had roughly the same scale as strategic command, but it didn't click for me for whatever reason (I think I found it a bit clunky to use).

Concerning naval air operations, I liked Warplan pacific. It made a good use of simultaneous turn resolution mechanisms, but it didn't have any management part iirc.
I also played Strategic War in Europe, which also has a Corps, Army scale, but it didn't feel as clean as WiF (the board game).

Thanks for any recommendations. Maybe I am better off just getting Age of Wonders III....but I do like a panzer division rumbling by every now and then.

I thought you wanted to play at the corps+ scale!

 

[man-erg]

Yes, I know where you're coming from. With strategic computer wargames it always seems to be "more units, bigger maps, more details, longer campaigns", resulting in a tedious micromanaging mess. Don't know why that is... maybe some people just have too much spare time to kill? I hate the way most are just 100's of tilles lined up next to each other. Click and select enemy...nothing much happens...repeat 10,000 times.

Anyway, you could take a look at "Campaigns on the Danube". I'd never heard of it until a recent Flarepath article on Rock Paper Shotgun.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/12/11/the-flare-path-danube-speedboats/

Although I only picked it up a week ago, I reckon the Flarepath is an accurate assessment. There's not much else like this - you give orders mostly at Corps level, messengers get sent out to commanders who interpret them and move their divisions accordingly. So no tedious micro and it captures Napoleonic era operational maneuvering well - far better than the AGEODS equivalent which is another confused micro-mess. The only downside I see with COTD is lack of content - you get about 7 scenarios, each of which takes 3 - 4 hours, maybe more if you spend time pondering. Shame, as it seems a great system which avoids all the tedium you mention.

The only other one I could think of is John Tillers Campaign Series. Operational level WW2 (East Front, West Front and Rising Sun), also on sale at Matrix. Simple system, but effective and minimal micro - if you avoid the huge scenarios. Masses of content in this one though, probably several hundred scenarios and campaigns

 

[Corporate_Jew_Master]

Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm is my favourite tactical/operational one. For everything else, Gary Grisby.

 

[Galdred]

Strategic command 3 is coming from Matrix, so rejoice : no more retarded DRM, only retarded pricing, but that would have been the same with Battlefront.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Command Ops.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Strategic command 3 is coming from Matrix, so rejoice : no more retarded DRM, only retarded pricing, but that would have been the same with Battlefront.

There's nothing retarded about Matrix games pricing (it's only problematic if one lives outside the west and is subjected to the false mythology of inferiority of ones work).

 

[Galdred]

Strategic command 3 is coming from Matrix, so rejoice : no more retarded DRM, only retarded pricing, but that would have been the same with Battlefront.

There's nothing retarded about Matrix games pricing (it's only problematic if one lives outside the west and is subjected to the false mythology of inferiority of ones work).

It really depends on their games. Some are truly worth it indeed, but the Close Combat serie pricing is pushing it a bit for instance, given the small amount of improvements added.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Strategic command 3 is coming from Matrix, so rejoice : no more retarded DRM, only retarded pricing, but that would have been the same with Battlefront.

There's nothing retarded about Matrix games pricing (it's only problematic if one lives outside the west and is subjected to the false mythology of inferiority of ones work).

It really depends on their games. Some are truly worth it indeed, but the Close Combat serie pricing is pushing it a bit for instance, given the small amount of improvements added.

They have to pay for licence for the engine which apparently costs a lot. The whole CC series are a horrible mess and would be best left dead and buried. It was resurrected only because of these stupid fanatics from CSO.

 

[chuft]

I am reading the conversation with interest. Thanks for the ideas guys. There seems to be a real shortage of hex-based, operational/strategic, move-and-fight-without-unit-babysitting fairly realistic games. I hope Strategic Command III comes out soon. I suspect the constantly changing OS situation (Windows 7/8/10) doesn't help the development cycle.

Playing Sword of the Stars again at the moment as I continue to investigate the wargame scene. I have modded it to be more fun - the race I am playing can research any non-race-specific tech and I have renamed all the system names to be easier to remember and to match the races.

Commander: The Great War seems to go out of its way to hide its time scale, even in the manual, but from the number of turns in the 1914 campaign I have deduced it is about two weeks per turn. More zoomed in than I would like for a WWI game but I might try it.

 

[sser]

Have you tried Battle Academy?

 

[chuft]

No, because it is tactical.

"Gameplay features include ambushes, line of sight..."

Two of my least favorite things in life.

 

[sser]

Yeah, if you're not a fan of those you probably wouldn't like the game that much.

My favorite wargames were always West Front and Civil War Generals (the sequel particularly). I dunno how available these are nowadays, but they're both pretty damn good games and very accessible, too.

 

[Galdred]

For some reason, I loved Advanced Tactics : WW2, even though I TOAW never clicked for me. Maybe because AT:WW2 had a civilization vibe ( research, production) that was not very historical, but fun.
I also think combat results were more predictable than in TOAW.
It also let you build your units with great flexibility.
IIRC, it was bad at portraying naval combat, but most land wargames are.

 

[Galdred]

Command Ops.

Which module would you recommend for this one?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Command Ops.

Which module would you recommend for this one?

I think it depends on which WWII campaign interests you the most.

Personally, I only played through the tutorial and then proceeded to make science-fantasy mods for it.

 

[man-erg]

Commander: The Great War seems to go out of its way to hide its time scale, even in the manual, but from the number of turns in the 1914 campaign I have deduced it is about two weeks per turn. More zoomed in than I would like for a WWI game but I might try it.

I had the WW2 version of that - Commander: Europe At War. From memory, it was a strange variation of "Panzer General/Corps" but at a grand strategic level. Like PG, it was very playable, but ultimately unrealistic. After 3 or 4 evenings of "just one more turn" obsession with it, I totally lost interest in it. It was a nice try, but just *too* shallow. It is more like how a boardgame would simulate it, don't quote me on it, but you could get through a year in maybe a couple of hours. Turns were weekly, maybe 2 weekly, either way it makes naval and air combat surreal!

Anyway, there's a much updated version of it these days: "Military History: Europe at War". As WW1 is generally less interesting from a gaming point of view than WW2, maybe you should look into it? Just looked and the latest version, apparently much improved over the original I had 6 years ago, is only $10 on Slitherine. For that price...you'll get your moneys worth even if for only 20 hours. Funny, but a game I'd totally forgotten about, now I'm tempted to try that latest version.

Also, AoW3? Nah...it's OK, but I don't think it's what you're looking for. It's all micro, games take forever whether your winning or losing it always plays out like WW1, every inch fought over again and again. It's not terrible...just too slow and unwieldy. And no Panzers.

 

[man-erg]

For some reason, I loved Advanced Tactics : WW2, even though I TOAW clicked for me. Maybe because AT:WW2 had a civilization vibe ( research, production)

Yeah, agreed on that. This is from years ago so my memory may be innacurate. The thing is, I don't like "Victory Points". It's a totally artificial mechanism introduced to the game. IRL, commanders don't capture a town for "25 Victory Points"! Anyway, Advanced Tactics had resources and production, so you need to capture those, not abstract VP's. Which is much more realistic. You'd plan your strategy around cutting the opponents supply and capturing resources for yourself. As I recall, there were a load of scenarios based on real life, but my favourite games were those generated randomly. You;d have to assess the enemy empire, defend your own resources while capturing theirs. Panzers included! I'm getting nostalgic for these old games..I had AT, but not the Gold version, and my serial is long lost about 3 computers ago.

 

[chuft]

I had the WW2 version of that - Commander: Europe At War. From memory, it was a strange variation of "Panzer General/Corps" but at a grand strategic level. Like PG, it was very playable, but ultimately unrealistic. After 3 or 4 evenings of "just one more turn" obsession with it, I totally lost interest in it. It was a nice try, but just *too* shallow. It is more like how a boardgame would simulate it, don't quote me on it, but you could get through a year in maybe a couple of hours. Turns were weekly, maybe 2 weekly, either way it makes naval and air combat surreal!

Anyway, there's a much updated version of it these days: "Military History: Europe at War". As WW1 is generally less interesting from a gaming point of view than WW2, maybe you should look into it? Just looked and the latest version, apparently much improved over the original I had 6 years ago, is only $10 on Slitherine. For that price...you'll get your moneys worth even if for only 20 hours. Funny, but a game I'd totally forgotten about, now I'm tempted to try that latest version.

Interesting. What makes you think it is much improved? How old was your version? This game looks to be released in 2009.

Matrix has this:
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/344/details/Commander.-.Europe.at.War.Gold

but Slitherine shows this:
http://www.slitherine.com/games/mh_ceaw_gold_pc

I don't really understand the relationship between Slitherine and Matrix. Could Matrix be selling an older version?

Slitherine's mentions the "military history" in the title, while Matrix mentions "Gold" in their title. Matrix says it works on 98/2000/XP/Vista/7, Slitherine lists 98/ME/2000/XP which makes me a bit nervous. Both say they were released in 2009.

Also, AoW3? Nah...it's OK, but I don't think it's what you're looking for. It's all micro, games take forever whether your winning or losing it always plays out like WW1, every inch fought over again and again. It's not terrible...just too slow and unwieldy. And no Panzers.

Hmm. I absolutely love AOW2 and AOW2: Shadow Magic. Is AoW3 that different from those two? They did not play like WW1.

 

[GarfunkeL]

You do realize that TOAW - especially 3 - allows a high degree of flexibility? You don't have to play the massive Ostfront campaign with divisions and special regiments, there's a corps version as well? That the engine supports anything from battalion and 12 hour turns to corps and 1 week turns?

 

[man-erg]

Interesting. What makes you think it is much improved? How old was your version? This game looks to be released in 2009.

According to Slitherine: "It includes extra missions, balance enhancements, bug fixes and a much simpler serial number copy protection system". So just a minor upgrade then. For WW2 at corps level, it may match what your looking for. I'm not aware of any competition for it in this particular niche. Note that it is only the European theatre. Gary Grigbsy's "high level" World At War covers all theatres. It looks like a boardgame, but I have no idea on how good it is. It never made much of an impression so I'm guessing fairly mediocre?

Hmm. I absolutely love AOW2 and AOW2: Shadow Magic. Is AoW3 that different from those two? They did not play like WW1.

I'm far from expert on AoW, I have them all but mostly played AoW3. I just find it OK, but a real slog to get through a game. It's not that it has trench warfare and stagnant front lines, just that it seems to take forever to do anything. AFAIK, some who love AOW2 totally hate AOW3, because as is the trend, it's "streamlined" from the earlier versions. Nicer graphics but far fewer unit types. But then there are plenty who really like AOW3 as well , your best bet is to check out some of the many Youtube lets plays.

 

[chuft]

When I tried TOAW it felt like a typical computer wargame, slow, zoomed in and way too gradual in its combat results. 3% here, 4% there. Exactly what I am trying to avoid. Playing a smaller scenario doesn't change the slow pacing. Units had way too many ratings and the combat process just felt like molasses.

I just went to youtube and picked a random TOAW III video of a smaller scenario, of a battle where one side had a very strong advantage and should be able to blow away the other, at least during the opening surprise attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_ZgF8OA-3A

What I see is lots of retreats, repeated attacks over and over on the same defenders, and if I pause the movie during the combat results popup, I see quite a few battles with 5% casualties inflicted on the defender. TOAW is pretty much the classic definition of a computer wargame, which plays a lot slower and more gradually than a board wargame. I prefer the board wargame type of pace.

 

[boot]

chuft

There seems to be a real shortage of hex-based, operational/strategic, move-and-fight-without-unit-babysitting fairly realistic games.

I'm not the most experienced with grand-strategy, but isn't the babysitting aspect supposed to be a large part of the appeal? I don't find Civ or Age of Empires to have much combat depth, that you used these for examples makes me think what you're looking for isn't a grand-strategy War game, but something lighter with a good historical skin.

Also, I'm pretty sure board War games play out as fast as they do because a group of people can't really spend that much time sitting around a table, it's more of a... concession, or something, I think.

 

[chuft]

I own hundreds of board wargames. Some of them take 120+ hours to finish. None of them require babysitting units and fiddling with multiple statuses that you have to worry about. All of them play faster and with more excitement than the typical computer wargame.

The 4X games tend to play like board wargames do. When you make an attack, something dramatic happens. I just want a computer wargame like that.